[FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW

[glen]

I have the same tendency. But a useful question to ask is "What would change your mind?" It's a trope at this point, watching Musk or Trump zealots defend their Cheeto Jesus no matter what he does or what evidence is presented to them. But when confronted by a relatively more reasonable optimist like Altman, it's a useful question. What evidence would change your mind. And is that evidence out there; you just can't/won't see it?

I'm not trying to imply there is such evidence, nor that anyone here is an evidence-blind zealot. I use the question on myself when I find that I've started believing in something/anything. For example, the Pinker books that Gish gallop us with chart after chart showing the "to the moon" curves, like some crypto bro or MLM scammer, do tend to change my mind. But what preserves my skepticism in the face of such Gish gallops is we don't see them asking themselves "What would change my mind?" And those that don't ask that question on a fairly regular basis, are ripe to be captured by zealotry. I'd be more interested if Pinker outlined a testing program capable of showing that we're failing.

What evidence are we *actively* looking for that demonstrates these advances in technology are making our lives *worse*, not better as we currently believe? We learn through failure, not success.

On 1/19/23 03:17, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> *Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism.*
> 
> Yes, sadly the world is unequal and those at the bottom of the economic ladder just don't get a good deal.
> 
> On the positive side, looking back at the history of mankind there is evidence that it is now better to live than ever in the past for the large majority of humankind. This is true even though it is the sad truth that it's very far from perfect; human suffering is a reality, Glen's comment is sad but true.
> 
> The question of course is whether it will continue to go better?
> 
> It's just impossible to know the future. One person can believe it'll go better in the future, another that it'll be worse, each with tons of  good arguments.
> 
> I for one, embrace the optimism of Sam Altman, just for completeness I repeat his quote and give the reference again.
> "Intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
> Taken from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>  :
> 
> In conclusion, yes I agree with Glen that there are sadly hidden elements to all the techno-optimism. but this does not dampen my enthusiasm for the future triggered by abundant intelligence and energy.
> 
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 21:08, glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Sadly, there are some hidden elements to all that techno-optimism. E.g.
> 
>     https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m <https://nitter.cz/billyperrigo/status/1615682180201447425#m>
> 
>     On 1/18/23 00:40, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
>      > I totally agree that realizable behavior is what matters.
>      >
>      > The elephant in the room is whether AI (and robotics of course) will (not to replace but to) be able to do better than humans in all respects, including come up with creative solutions to not only the world's most pressing problems but also small creative things like writing poems, and then to do the mental and physical tasks required to provide goods and services to all in the world,
>      >
>      > Sam Altman said there are two things that will shape our future; intelligence and energy. If we have real abundant intelligence and energy, the world will be very different indeed.
>      >
>      > To quote Sam Altmen at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms> <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/intelligence-energy-sam-altmans-technology-predictions-for-2020s/articleshow/86088731.cms>>  :
>      >
>      > "intelligence and energy have been the fundamental limiters towards most things we want. A future where these are not the limiting reagents will be radically different, and can be amazingly better."
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 03:06, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Definitions are all fine and good, but realizable behavior is what matters.   Analog computers will have imperfect behavior, and there will be leakage between components.   A large network of transistors or neurons are sufficiently similar for my purposes.   The unrolling would be inside a skull, so somewhat isolated from interference.
>      >
>      >     -----Original Message-----
>      >     From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>>> On Behalf Of glen
>      >     Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:11 PM
>      >     To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> <mailto:friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>      >     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] NickC channels DaveW
>      >
>      >     I don't quite grok that. A crisp definition of recursion implies no interaction with the outside world, right? If you can tolerate the ambiguity in that statement, the artifacts laying about from an unrolled recursion might be seen and used by outsiders. That's not to say a trespasser can't have some sophisticated intrusion technique. But unrolled seems more "open" to family, friends, and the occasional acquaintance.
>      >
>      >     On 1/17/23 13:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>      >      > I probably didn't pay enough attention to the thread some time ago on serialization, but to me recursion is hard to distinguish from an unrolling of recursion.


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ